Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hegemony and Sociology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Sociology in the Twenty-First Century

  • 644 Accesses

Abstract

Academic disciplines, far from constituting free-floating realms of transcendental knowledge production, are shaped by the hegemonic modes of cognitive and behavioural functioning that are prevalent in the societies in which they are embedded. In other words, epistemic developments, including those that are brought about by experts in specialist fields of inquiry, cannot be dissociated from societal developments, including those that, at first glance, may not appear to be related to dynamics of knowledge generation. The question of the future of academic disciplines, therefore, is intertwined with the question of prospective social constellations, whose legitimacy, owing to the incessant struggle between hegemonic and counterhegemonic forces, may be reinforced or undermined.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    On the concept of ‘hegemony’, see, for example: Agnew (2005); Agnew and Corbridge (1995); Andrews (2017); Bloomfield (1977); Buckley (2013); Butler et al. (2000); Day (2004); Evans (2000); Fowler (1994); Gabay (2013); Joseph (2002); Keohane (2005 [1984]); Laclau and Mouffe (2001 [1985]); Lash (2007); Santos and Rodríguez-Garavito (2005); Schubert (2002).

  2. 2.

    On the future of sociology, see, for example: Baldwin and Baldwin (1980); Beck (1999a); Becker (2000); Bell (1974); Bell (1996); Borgatta (1987); Burawoy (2007); Crook (2003); Eitzen (1991); Giddens (1987b); Golding (2000); Gouldner (1971); Janka (1996); Jawad et al. (2017); Knottnerus and Maguire (1995); Lyle (2016); Soeffner (2012); Tezanos Tortajada (2001); Westwood (2000); Zine (2016).

  3. 3.

    On sociology’s history (and futures past), see, for example: Borch (2012); Halsey (2004); Renwick (2012).

  4. 4.

    On social theory’s history, see, for example: Dahms (2013). Cf. Burke (2005 [1992]).

  5. 5.

    On the future of social theory, see, for example: Gane (2004); Joas and Knöbl (2009 [2004]); Randeria (1999).

  6. 6.

    On the future of society, see, for example: Adkins (2017); Outhwaite (2006).

  7. 7.

    On the future of modernity, see, for example: Hall et al. (1992).

  8. 8.

    On global futures, see, for example: Mignolo (2011).

  9. 9.

    On the sociology of the future, see, for example: Adam (2009); Adam (2010); Adam (2011); Adam and Groves (2007); Atal (1986); Bell (1996); Coleman (2017); Coleman and Richard (2017); Huber and Bell (1971); Michael (2017); Nickel (2012); Shaw (1998); Tutton (2017); Urry (2016); Westwood (2000).

  10. 10.

    On this point, see Coleman and Richard (2017), p. 440.

  11. 11.

    Urry (2010), p. 191. See also Coleman and Richard (2017), p. 440.

  12. 12.

    Urry (2010), p. 191 (quotation modified). See also Coleman and Richard (2017), p. 440.

  13. 13.

    On this point, see, for example: Adam (2011); Adam and Groves (2007); Berardi (2011); Genosko and Thoburn (2011); Urry (2010); Urry (2016); Žižek (2010).

  14. 14.

    On this point, see Coles and Susen (2018).

  15. 15.

    On this point, see, for instance: Adkins (2011); Adkins (2012); Adkins (2014), esp. pp. 527–533; Adkins (2017); Browne and Susen (2014); Coleman and Richard (2017); Giroux (2011); Willetts (2010).

  16. 16.

    Coleman and Richard (2017), p. 440. Cf. Levitas (2011 [1990]) and Levitas (2013).

  17. 17.

    On this point, see Pinker (2018). Cf. Susen (2015a), esp. Chapter 4. For an excellent critique of this project, see, for example, Allen (2016). See also, for instance, Wolff (1994).

  18. 18.

    Cf. Levitas (2011 [1990]) and Levitas (2013).

  19. 19.

    Coleman and Richard (2017), p. 441.

  20. 20.

    On the concept of ‘crisis’ in social and political thought, see, for example, Cordero (2017a). See also, for instance, Susen (2017c) and Cordero (2017b). In addition, see, for example: Boudon (1972); Boudon (1980 [1971]); Calhoun and Derluguian (2011); Cassano and Dello Buono (2012); Duménil and Lévy (2011); Farrar and Mayes (2013); Fforde (2009); Gouldner (1971); Habermas (1987 [1968b]); Habermas (1988 [1973]); Holton (1987); House (2019); Jay (2010); Koselleck (1988 [1959]); Lopreato and Crippen (1999); McKie and Ryan (2018); Rauche (1970); Schweppenhäuser et al. (1987); Schweppenhäuser et al. (1989); Sandywell (1996); Sim (2002); Streeck (2011); Tsilimpounidi (2017); Wagner (2010); Walby (2015); Wallerstein (2011a).

  21. 21.

    Brown and Michael (2003), p. 4 (italics in original). On this point, see also Coleman and Richard (2017), p. 441.

  22. 22.

    Coleman and Richard (2017), p. 441.

  23. 23.

    Ibid., p. 441.

  24. 24.

    Ibid., p. 441.

  25. 25.

    See, for instance: Adam (1990); Adam (1995); Adam (1998); Adam (2004); Baert (1992); Baert (2000); Birth (2012); Hassan and Purser (2007); Hassard (1990); Hoy (2009); Rosa (2010); Wajcman and Dodd (2016).

  26. 26.

    See, for example, Heidegger (2001 [1927]) and Heidegger (1992 [1989/1924]). See also, for instance: Bardon (2013); Baron and Miller (2019); Callender (2011); Le Poidevin and MacBeath (1993); Turetzky (1998).

  27. 27.

    See, for instance: Adam (2009); Adam (2010); Adam (2011); Adam and Groves (2007); Atal (1986); Bell (1996); Coleman (2017); Coleman and Richard (2017); Huber and Bell (1971); Michael (2017); Nickel (2012); Shaw (1998); Tutton (2017); Urry (2016); Westwood (2000).

  28. 28.

    Coleman and Richard (2017), p. 441. See also, for example, Schulz (2015).

  29. 29.

    On the future of society, see, for example: Adkins (2017); Outhwaite (2006).

  30. 30.

    On the future of humanity, see, for example: Chernilo (2017); Fuller (2011); Fuller (2013); Hollis (2015 [1977]); Rees (2018); Susen (2020c); Taylor (1989a).

  31. 31.

    On the concept of ‘the posthuman’ and the rise of ‘posthumanism’, see, for instance: Badmington (2000); Braidotti (2013); Braidotti (2019); Fukuyama (2002); Hayles (1999); Herbrechter (2013 [2009]); Mahon (2017); Nayar (2014); Peterson (2018).

  32. 32.

    On this point, see, for instance, Crook (2003), esp. pp. 8–9, 9–10, and 14. Cf. Susen (2015a), Susen (2016d), and Susen (2017d).

  33. 33.

    On this point, see, for instance, Crook (2003), esp. pp. 8, 9, 11–12, and 14. Cf. Susen (2015a), Susen (2016d), and Susen (2017d).

  34. 34.

    Crook (2003), pp. 8 and 14.

  35. 35.

    On this point, see, for instance, ibid., esp. pp. 9–10 and 13–14. See also, for example: Bailey and Freedman (2011); Burton (2016); Collini (2012); Collini (2017); Crouch (2016); Evans (2004); Furedi (2006 [2004]); Furedi (2017); Holmwood (2010a); Holmwood (2010b); Holmwood (2011a); Holmwood (2011b); Loick (2018); McGettigan (2013); Power (1994); Power (1997); Rosenfeld (2010); Savage (2010); Smart (2016), esp. pp. 464 and 468–472; Sparkes (2007); Strathern (2000); Willetts (2017); Wright and Shore (2017). In addition, see, for instance: Alstete et al. (2018); Denicolo (2013); Fenby-Hulse et al. (2019); Freudenburg (1986); Freudenburg and Keating (1982); Haux (2019); Reed (2018 [2016]); Welsh (2020); Woodside (2016).

  36. 36.

    Crook (2003), p. 14.

  37. 37.

    Abbott (2000), p. 296.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., p. 296.

  39. 39.

    See Becker (2000).

  40. 40.

    On visual methods in social research, see, for example: Banks (2007); Banks (2015 [2001]); Hamilton (2006); Knowles and Sweetman (2004); Marion and Crowder (2013); Margolis and Pauwels (2011); Mitchell (2011); Pauwels (2015); Rose (2016 [2001]); Spencer (2011).

  41. 41.

    Becker (2000), p. 333.

  42. 42.

    Ibid., p. 333.

  43. 43.

    See ibid., p. 333.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., p. 333.

  45. 45.

    Burawoy (2007), p. 339.

  46. 46.

    On this point, see Habermas (1981a) and Habermas (1981b). See also Habermas (1987a [1981]) and Habermas (1987b [1981]). In addition, see, for example: Susen (2007), esp. Chapters 1–4; Susen (2009a); Susen (2009b); Susen (2010c); Susen (2011d); Susen (2018c).

  47. 47.

    Burawoy (2007), p. 340.

  48. 48.

    Ibid., p. 340.

  49. 49.

    Ibid., p. 340.

  50. 50.

    Ibid., p. 340.

  51. 51.

    See, for instance: Browne and Susen (2014); Coles (2016); Coles and Susen (2018); Holloway and Susen (2013); Susen (2012a).

  52. 52.

    Burawoy (2007), p. 340.

  53. 53.

    On the concept of ‘public sociology’, see, for example: Burawoy (2005a); Burawoy (2007); Burawoy et al. (2004); Jeffries (2009); Keith (2008); Susen (2015a), p. 7.

  54. 54.

    Burawoy (2007), p. 340.

  55. 55.

    Ibid., p. 340.

  56. 56.

    Ibid., p. 340.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., p. 340.

  58. 58.

    On this point, see Susen (2015a), pp. 83, 88, 89, 92, 242, and 243. On the announcement of ‘the end of “the social”’, see, for instance: Bogard (1987), p. 208; Butler (2002), p. 31; Delanty (2000b), p. 137; Kellner (1989b), p. 85; Smart (1993), pp. 51–62; Toews (2003); Wernick (2000).

  59. 59.

    Burawoy (2007), p. 340.

  60. 60.

    On this point, see Susen (2014c) and Susen (2016c). On the ‘dominant ideology thesis’, see, for instance: Abercrombie et al. (1980); Abercrombie et al. (1990); Boltanski (2008); Bourdieu and Boltanski (1976); Bourdieu and Boltanski (2008 [1976]); Browne and Susen (2014); Conde-Costas (1991); Eagleton (2006 [1976]); Eagleton (2007 [1991]); Holloway and Susen (2013); Inglis (2013), esp. pp. 320–322; Inglis and Thorpe (2012), Chapter 3; Larrain (1991 [1983]); Marx and Engels (1953 [1845–1847]); Marx and Engels (2000/1977 [1846]); Rehmann (2004); Reitz (2004); Susen (2008a); Susen (2008b); Susen (2012a); Susen (2013c), pp. 337–338, 340, 345, 349, and 352; Susen (2014 [2015]), esp. pp. 12–21; Susen (2015c); Weber (1995); Žižek (1989); Žižek (1994).

  61. 61.

    Burawoy (2007), p. 340.

  62. 62.

    On the concepts of ‘doxa’ and ‘common sense’, see, for example: Bourdieu and Eagleton (1992); Hamel (2000 [1997]); Holton (2000); Myles (2004); Wacquant (2004a). In addition, see, for example: Susen (2007), pp. 24, 136, 137, 138–141, 146n16, 159, 178, 191, 222, 224, 225, 226, 242, 243, 251, 252, 253, 309, and 312; Susen (2011a), pp. 450, 451, 452, and 457; Susen (2011e), pp. 50 and 82; Susen (2013e), pp. 205, 206, 208, 209, 221, 223, 227, and 228; Susen (2015a), pp. 7, 9, 13, 49, 51, 52, 58, 59, 60, 84, 99, 112, 148, 154, 156, 157, 167, 210, 259, and 270.

  63. 63.

    See Burawoy (2007), p. 340. See also Polanyi (2001 [1944]).

  64. 64.

    Burawoy (2007), p. 344 (punctuation modified).

  65. 65.

    See ibid., p. 344. See also Polanyi (2001 [1944]).

  66. 66.

    On the distinction between ‘use value’ and ‘exchange value’, see, for example, Susen (2012a), pp. 307–308 and 324–325n165. Cf. Haug (1999a) and Marxhausen (1999).

  67. 67.

    See, for example: Marx (2000/1977 [1857–1858/1941]); Marx (2000/1977 [1859]); Marx and Engels (2000/1977 [1846]); Marx and Engels (1987/1945 [1848]); Marx (2000/1977 [1867]). For an excellent overview, see Marxhausen (1999).

  68. 68.

    See Burawoy (2007), p. 346.

  69. 69.

    Ibid., p. 348 (quotation modified).

  70. 70.

    See ibid., pp. 348–352.

  71. 71.

    Ibid., p. 349.

  72. 72.

    Ibid., p. 349.

  73. 73.

    On this point, see Susen (2015a), p. 124. See also ibid. pp. 125, 130, 133, and 134. On the global influence of deregulated production systems and labour markets, see, for example: Bonefeld and Holloway (1991b); Boron (1999), p. 53; Dolgon (1999), pp. 129–130 and 139–140; Harvey (1989), esp. pp. 292–296; Jameson (1984); Jameson (2007), pp. 215–216; Kellner (2007), pp. 103–106; Piketty (2013); Slott (2002), pp. 420–422; Vakaloulis (2001), pp. 103–121 and 153–172; Williams et al. (2013).

  74. 74.

    Burawoy (2007), p. 349.

  75. 75.

    For an excellent summary of this argument, see ibid., p. 350 (‘Table 1: Sociology versus the Market’).

  76. 76.

    See Susen (2015a), p. 125.

  77. 77.

    Burawoy (2007), p. 349 (quotation modified).

  78. 78.

    Ibid., p. 351 (quotation modified).

  79. 79.

    Ibid., p. 351 (italics added) (quotation modified).

  80. 80.

    Ibid., p. 351 (quotation modified).

  81. 81.

    See, for example: Burawoy (2005a); Burawoy (2007); Burawoy et al. (2004); Jeffries (2009); Keith (2008).

  82. 82.

    Burawoy (2007), p. 352.

References

  • Abbott, Andrew (2000) ‘Reflections on the Future of Sociology’, Contemporary Sociology 29(2): 296–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abercrombie, Nicholas, Stephen Hill, and Bryan S. Turner (1980) The Dominant Ideology Thesis, London: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abercrombie, Nicholas, Stephen Hill, and Bryan S. Turner (eds.) (1990) Dominant Ideologies, London: Unwin Hyman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adam, Barbara (1990) Time and Social Theory, Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adam, Barbara (1995) Timewatch: The Social Analysis of Time, Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adam, Barbara (1998) Timescapes of Modernity: The Environment and Invisible Hazards, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adam, Barbara (2004) Time, Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adam, Barbara (2009) ‘Futures in the Making: Sociological Practice and Challenge’, in Vincent Jeffries (ed.) Handbook of Public Sociology, Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, pp. 429–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adam, Barbara (2010) ‘Future Matters: Challenge for Social Theory and Social Inquiry’, Cultura e comunicazione 1: 47–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adam, Barbara (2011) ‘Wendell Bell and the Sociology of the Future: Challenges Past, Present and Future’, Futures 43(6): 590–595.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adam, Barbara and Chris Groves (2007) Future Matters: Action, Knowledge, Ethics, Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adkins, Lisa (2011) ‘Practice as Temporalisation: Bourdieu and Economic Crisis’, in Simon Susen and Bryan S. Turner (eds.) The Legacy of Pierre Bourdieu: Critical Essays, London: Anthem Press, pp. 347–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adkins, Lisa (2012) ‘Out of Work or Out of Time? Rethinking Labor after the Financial Crisis’, South Atlantic Quarterly 111(4): 621–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adkins, Lisa (2014) ‘Luc Boltanski and the Problem of Time: Notes Towards a Pragmatic Sociology of the Future’, in Simon Susen and Bryan S. Turner (eds.) The Spirit of Luc Boltanski: Essays on the ‘Pragmatic Sociology of Critique’, London: Anthem Press, pp. 517–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adkins, Lisa (2017) ‘Speculative Futures in the Time of Debt’, The Sociological Review 65(3): 448–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agnew, John A. (2005) Hegemony. The New Shape of Global Power, Philadelphia, PA|: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agnew, John A. and Stuart Corbridge (1995) Mastering Space: Hegemony, Territory and International Political Economy, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, Amy (2016) The End of Progress: Decolonizing the Normative Foundations of Critical Theory, New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alstete, Jeffrey W., Nicholas J. Beutell, and John P. Meyer (2018) Evaluating Scholarship and Research Impact: History, Practices and Policy Development, Bingley: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, Sean Johnson (2017) Hegemony, Mass Media, and Cultural Studies. Properties of Meaning, Power, and Value in Cultural Production, London: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atal, Yogesh (1986) ‘Sociology and the Future’, International Social Science Journal 38(2): 303–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Badmington, Neil (ed.) (2000) Posthumanism, Houndmills: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baert, Patrick (1992) Time, Self and Social Being: Temporality within a Sociological Context, Aldershot: Avebury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baert, Patrick (ed.) (2000) Time in Contemporary Intellectual Thought, Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, Michael and Des Freedman (eds.) (2011) The Assault on Universities. A Manifesto for Resistance, London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, John D. and Janice I. Baldwin (1980) ‘Reduction and the Future of Sociology’, Sociological Inquiry 50(2): 93–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, Marcus (2007) Using Visual Data in Qualitative Research, London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, Marcus (2015 [2001]) Visual Methods in Social Research, 2nd Edition, London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardon, Adrian (2013) A Brief History of the Philosophy of Time, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, Sam and Kristie Miller (2019) An Introduction to the Philosophy of Time, Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Bernard (1999a) ‘The Future of Sociology’, Sociological Inquiry 69(1): 121–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, Howard S. (2000) ‘What Should Sociology Look Like in the (Near) Future?’, Contemporary Sociology 29(2): 333–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, Colin (1974) ‘Replication and Reality: Or, the Future of Sociology’, Futures 6(3): 253–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, Wendell (1996) ‘The Sociology of the Future and the Future of Sociology’, Sociological Perspectives 39(1): 39–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berardi, Franco (2011) After the Future, trans. Arianna Bove, Melinda Cooper, Erik Empson, Enrico, Giuseppina Mecchia, and Tiziana Terranova, edited by Gary Genosko and Nicholas Thoburn, Oakland, CA: AK Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birth, Kevin K. (2012) Objects of Time. How Things Shape Temporality, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloomfield, Jon (ed.) (1977) Papers on Class, Hegemony and Party: The Communist University of London, London: Lawrence and Wishart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogard, William (1987) ‘A Reply to Denzin: Postmodern Social Theory’, Sociological Theory 5(2): 206–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boltanski, Luc (2008) Rendre la réalité inacceptable. À propos de “La production de l’idéologie dominante”, Paris: Demopolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonefeld, Werner and John Holloway (1991b) ‘Introduction: Post-Fordism and Social Form’, in Werner Bonefeld and John Holloway (eds.) Post-Fordism and Social Form: A Marxist Debate on the Post-Fordist State, London: Macmillan, pp. 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borch, Christian (2012) The Politics of Crowds: An Alternative History of Sociology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatta, Edgar F. (1987) ‘The Future of Sociology: The Basis for Optimism’, Sociological Perspectives 30(1): 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boron, Atilio A. (1999) ‘A Social Theory for the 21st Century?’, Current Sociology 47(4): 47–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudon, Raymond (1972) ‘The Sociology Crisis’, Social Science Information 11(3–4): 109–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudon, Raymond (1980 [1971]) The Crisis in Sociology: Problems of Sociological Epistemology, trans. Howard H. Davis, New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, Pierre and Luc Boltanski (1976) ‘La production de l’idéologie dominante’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 2–3: 4–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, Pierre and Luc Boltanski (2008 [1976]) La production de l’idéologie dominante, Paris: Demopolis / Raisons d’agir.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, Pierre and Terry Eagleton (1992) ‘Doxa and Common Life’, New Left Review 191: 111–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braidotti, Rosi (2013) The Posthuman, Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braidotti, Rosi (2019) Posthuman Knowledge, Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Nik and Mike Michael (2003) ‘A Sociology of Expectations: Retrospecting Prospects and Prospecting Retrospects’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 15(1): 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, Craig and Simon Susen (2014) ‘Austerity and Its Antitheses: Practical Negations of Capitalist Legitimacy’, South Atlantic Quarterly 113(2): 217–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, Karen M. (2013) Global Civil Society and Transversal Hegemony: The Global-Contestation Nexus, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, Michael (2005a) ‘2004 ASA Presidential Address: For Public Sociology’, American Sociological Review 70(1): 4–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, Michael (2007) ‘The Future of Sociology’, Sociological Bulletin 56(3): 339–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, Michael, William Gamson, Charlotte Ryan, Stephen Pfohl, Diane Vaughan, Charles Derber, and Juliet Schor (2004) ‘Public Sociologies: A Symposium from Boston College’, Social Problems 51(1): 103–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, Peter (2005 [1992]) History and Social Theory, 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, Sarah (2016) ‘Becoming Sociological: Disciplinarity and a Sense of “Home”‘, Sociology 50(5): 984–992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, Christopher (2002) Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, Judith, Ernesto Laclau, and Slavoj Žižek (2000) Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left, London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calhoun, Craig and Georgi Derluguian (eds.) (2011) The Deepening Crisis: Governance Challenges after Neoliberalism, New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callender, Craig (ed.) (2011) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Time, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassano, Graham and Richard A. Dello Buono (eds.) (2012) Crisis, Politics and Critical Sociology, Chicago: Haymarket Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chernilo, Daniel (2017) Debating Humanity: Towards a Philosophical Sociology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, Rebecca (2017) ‘A Sensory Sociology of the Future: Affect, Hope and Inventive Methodologies’, The Sociological Review 65(3): 525–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, Rebecca and Tutton Richard (2017) ‘Introduction to Special Issue of Sociological Review on “Futures in Question: Theories, Methods, Practices”’, The Sociological Review 65(3): 440–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coles, Romand (2016) Visionary Pragmatism: Radical and Ecological Democracy in Neoliberal Times, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coles, Romand and Simon Susen (2018) ‘The Pragmatic Vision of Visionary Pragmatism: The Challenge of Radical Democracy in a Neoliberal World Order’, Contemporary Political Theory 17(2): 250–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collini, Stefan (2012) What Are Universities For?, London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collini, Stefan (2017) Speaking of Universities, London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conde-Costas, Luis A. (1991) The Marxist Theory of Ideology: A Conceptual Analysis, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordero, Rodrigo (2017a) Crisis and Critique: On the Fragile Foundations of Social Life, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordero, Rodrigo (2017b) ‘In Defense of Speculative Sociology: A Response to Simon Susen’, Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory 18(1): 125–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crook, Stephen (2003) ‘Change, Uncertainty and the Future of Sociology’, Journal of Sociology 39(1): 7–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, Colin (2016) The Knowledge Corrupters: Hidden Consequences of the Financial Takeover of Public Life, Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahms, Harry F. (ed.) (2013) Social Theories of History and Histories of Social Theory, Bingley: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, Richard J. F. (2004) ‘From Hegemony to Affinity: The Political Logic of the Newest Social Movements’, Cultural Studies 18(5): 716–748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delanty, Gerard (2000b) Modernity and Postmodernity: Knowledge, Power and the Self, London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denicolo, Pam (ed.) (2013) Achieving Impact in Research, London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolgon, Corey (1999) ‘Soulless Cities: Ann Arbor, the Cutting Edge of Discipline: Postfordism, Postmodernism, and the New Bourgeoisie’, Antipode 31(2): 129–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duménil, Gérard and Dominique Lévy (2011) The Crisis of Neoliberalism, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagleton, Terry (2006 [1976]) Criticism and Ideology: A Study in Marxist Literary Theory, New Edition, London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagleton, Terry (2007 [1991]) Ideology: An Introduction, New and Updated Edition, London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eitzen, D. Stanley (1991) ‘The Prospects for Sociology into the Twenty-First Century’, The American Sociologist 22(2): 109–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Mary (2004) Killing Thinking. The Death of the Universities, London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Peter (2000) ‘Fighting Marginalization with Transnational Networks: Counter-Hegemonic Globalization’, Contemporary Sociology 29(1): 230–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrar, John H. and David G. Mayes (eds.) (2013) Globalisation, the Global Financial Crisis and the State, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenby-Hulse, Kieran, Emma Heywood, and Kate Walker (eds.) (2019) Research Impact and the Early Career Researcher: Lived Experiences, New Perspectives, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fforde, Matthew (2009) Desocialisation: The Crisis of Post-Modernity, Cheadle Hulme: Gabriel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, Bridget (1994) ‘The Hegemonic Work of Art in the Age of Electronic Reproduction: An Assessment of Pierre Bourdieu’, Theory, Culture & Society 11(1): 129–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freudenburg, William R. (1986) ‘Social Impact Assessment’, Annual Review of Sociology 12(1): 451–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freudenburg, William R. and Kenneth M. Keating (1982) ‘Increasing the Impact of Sociology on Social Impact Assessment: Toward Ending the Inattention’, The American Sociologist 17(2): 71–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, Francis (2002) Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, London: Profile.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, Steve (2011) Humanity 2.0: What It Means to be Human Past, Present and Future, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, Steve (2013) Preparing for Life in Humanity 2.0, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furedi, Frank (2006 [2004]) Where Have All the Intellectuals Gone? Including ‘A Reply to Furedi’s Critics’, 2nd Edition, London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furedi, Frank (2017) What’s Happened to the University? A Sociological Exploration of Its Infantilisation, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabay, Clive (2013) Civil Society and Global Poverty: Hegemony, Inclusivity, Legitimacy, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gane, Nicholas (2004) The Future of Social Theory, London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genosko, Gary and Nicholas Thoburn (2011) ‘Preface: The Transversal Communism of Franco Berardi’, in Franco Berardi, After the Future, trans. Arianna Bove, Melinda Cooper, Erik Empson, Enrico, Giuseppina Mecchia, and Tiziana Terranova, edited by Gary Genosko and Nicholas Thoburn, Oakland, CA: AK Press, pp. 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, Anthony (1987b) ‘Nine Theses on the Future of Sociology’, in Anthony Giddens, Social Theory and Modern Sociology, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 22–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giroux, Henry A. (2011) ‘Fighting for the Future: American Youth and the Global Struggle for Democracy’, Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies 11(4): 328–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golding, Peter (2000) ‘Forthcoming Features: Information and Communications Technologies and the Sociology of the Future’, Sociology 34(1): 165–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, Alvin Ward (1971) The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen (1981a) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Band 1. Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen (1981b) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Band 2. Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen (1987 [1968b]) ‘The Crisis of the Critique of Knowledge’, in Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, trans. Jeremy J. Shapiro, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen (1987a [1981]) The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen (1987b [1981]) The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 2: Lifeworld and System. A Critique of Functionalist Reason, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen (1988 [1971]) ‘Introduction: Some Difficulties in the Attempt to Link Theory and Praxis’, in Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice, trans. John Viertel, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Stuart, David Held, and Anthony McGrew (eds.) (1992) Modernity and its Futures, Cambridge: Polity in association with the Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halsey, A. H. (2004) A History of Sociology in Britain: Science, Literature, and Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, Jacques (2000 [1997]) ‘Sociology, Common Sense, and Qualitative Methodology: The Position of Pierre Bourdieu and Alain Touraine’, in Derek Robbins (ed.) Pierre Bourdieu. Volume III, London: SAGE, pp. 143–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, Peter (ed.) (2006) Visual Research Methods, London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, David (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change, Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassan, Robert and Ronald E. Purser (eds.) (2007) 24/7: Time and Temporality in the Network Society, Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassard, John (ed.) (1990) The Sociology of Time, Basingstoke: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haug, Frigga (1999a) ‘Gebrauchswert’, in Wolfgang Fritz Haug (ed.) Historisch-kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus (Band 4), Hamburg: Argument-Verlag, pp. 1259–1289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haux, Tina (2019) Dimensions of Impact in the Social Sciences. The Case of Social Policy, Sociology and Political Science Research, Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayles, Katherine (1999) How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, Martin (1992 [1989/1924]) The Concept of Time, trans. William McNeill, Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, Martin (2001 [1927]) Sein und Zeit, Achtzehnte Auflage, Tübingen: Max-Niemeyer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbrechter, Stefan (2013 [2009]) Posthumanism. A Critical Analysis, London: Bloomsbury Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollis, Martin (2015 [1977]) Models of Man. Philosophical Thoughts on Social Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holloway, John and Simon Susen (2013) ‘Change the World by Cracking Capitalism? A Critical Encounter between John Holloway and Simon Susen’, Sociological Analysis 7(1): 23–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmwood, John (2010a) ‘Sociology’s Misfortune: Disciplines, Interdisciplinarity and the Impact of Audit Culture’, The British Journal of Sociology 61(4): 639–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmwood, John (2010b) ‘Not Only Our Misfortune: Reply to Rosenfeld and Savage’, The British Journal of Sociology 61(4): 671–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmwood, John (ed.) (2011a) A Manifesto for the Public University, London: Bloomsbury Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmwood, John (2011b) ‘Viewpoint—The Impact of “Impact” on UK Social Science’, Methodological Innovations Online 6(1): 13–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton, Robert J. (1987) ‘The Idea of Crisis in Modern Society’, The British Journal of Sociology 38(4): 502–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton, Robert J. (2000) ‘Bourdieu and Common Sense’, in Nicholas Brown and Imre Szeman (eds.) Pierre Bourdieu: Fieldwork in Culture, Boston: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, pp. 87–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, James S. (2019) ‘The Culminating Crisis of American Sociology and Its Role in Social Science and Public Policy: An Autobiographical, Multimethod, Reflexive Perspective’, Annual Review of Sociology 45(1): 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoy, David Couzens (2009) The Time of Our Lives: A Critical History of Temporality, Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, Bettina J. and Wendell Bell (1971) ‘Sociology and the Emergent Study of the Future’, The American Sociologist 6(4): 287–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglis, David (2013) ‘Bourdieu, Language and “Determinism”: A Reply to Simon Susen’, Social Epistemology 27(3–4): 315–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglis, David and Christopher Thorpe (2012) An Invitation to Social Theory, Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jameson, Fredric (1984) ‘Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism’, New Left Review 146: 53–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jameson, Fredric (2007) ‘Postscript’, in Pelagia Goulimari (ed.) Postmodernism. What Moment?, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 213–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janka, Franz (1996) ‘Die Zukunft der Soziologie’, Sozialwissenschaften und Berufspraxis 19(2): 141–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jawad, Rana, Paddy Dolan, and Tracey Skillington (2017) ‘Sociology in the 21st Century: Reminiscence and Redefinition’, Sociology 51(4): 904–914.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jay, Martin (2010) ‘Liquidity Crisis: Zygmunt Bauman and the Incredible Lightness of Modernity’, Theory, Culture & Society 27(6): 95–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffries, Vincent (ed.) (2009) Handbook of Public Sociology, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joas, Hans and Wolfgang Knöbl (2009 [2004]) Social Theory: Twenty Introductory Lectures, trans. Alex Skinner, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, Jonathan (2002) Hegemony: A Realist Analysis, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keith, Michael (2008) ‘Public Sociology? Between Heroic Immersion and Critical Distance: Personal Reflections on Academic Engagement with Political Life’, Critical Social Policy 28(3): 320–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellner, Douglas (1989b) Jean Baudrillard: From Marxism to Postmodernism and Beyond, Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellner, Douglas (2007) ‘Reappraising the Postmodern: Novelties, Mapping and Historical Narratives’, in Pelagia Goulimari (ed.) Postmodernism. What Moment?, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 102–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, Robert O. (2005 [1984]) After Hegemony. Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, New ed. Edition, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knottnerus, J. David and Brendan Maguire (1995) ‘The Status of Sociology Departments: An Assessment of Their Current and Future Prospects’, Sociological Spectrum 15(1): 17–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, Caroline and Paul Sweetman (eds.) (2004) Picturing the Social Landscape: Visual Methods and the Sociological Imagination, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koselleck, Reinhart (1988 [1959]) Critique and Crisis: Enlightenment and the Pathogenesis of Modern Society, Oxford: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe (2001 [1985]) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, 2nd Edition, London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrain, Jorge (1991 [1983]) ‘Ideology’, in Tom Bottomore (ed.) A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell Reference, pp. 247–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lash, Scott (2007) ‘Power after Hegemony: Cultural Studies in Mutation?’, Theory, Culture & Society 24(3): 55–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Poidevin, Robin and Murray MacBeath (eds.) (1993) The Philosophy of Time, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitas, Ruth (2011 [1990]) The Concept of Utopia, Student Edition, Witney: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitas, Ruth (2013) Utopia as Method. The Imaginary Reconstitution of Society, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loick, Daniel (2018) ‘If You’re a Critical Theorist, How Come You Work for a University?’, Critical Horizons 19(3): 233–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopreato, Joseph and Timothy Alan Crippen (1999) Crisis in Sociology. The Need for Darwin, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyle, Kate (2016) ‘Shaping the Future of Sociology: The Challenge of Interdisciplinarity beyond the Social Sciences’, Sociology 51(6): 1169–1185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahon, Peter (2017) Posthumanism: A Guide for the Perplexed, London: Bloomsbury Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, Eric and Luc Pauwels (eds.) (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Visual Research Methods, London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marion, Jonathan S. and Jerome W. Crowder (2013) Visual Research. A Concise Introduction to Thinking Visually, London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, Karl (2000/1977 [1857–1858/1941]) ‘Grundrisse’, in David McLellan (ed.) Karl Marx: Selected Writings, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 379–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, Karl (2000/1977 [1859]) ‘Preface to A Critique of Political Economy’, in David McLellan (ed.) Karl Marx: Selected Writings, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 424–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, Karl (2000/1977 [1867]) ‘Capital’, in David McLellan (ed.) Karl Marx: Selected Writings, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 452–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels (1953 [1845–1847]) Die deutsche Ideologie, Berlin: Dietz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels (1987/1945 [1848]) Manifest der kommunistischen Partei, 54. Auflage, Berlin: Dietz Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels (2000/1977 [1846]) ‘The German Ideology’, in David McLellan (ed.) Karl Marx: Selected Writings, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 175–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marxhausen, Thomas (1999) ‘Fetischcharakter der Ware’, in Wolfgang Fritz Haug (ed.) Historisch-kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus (Band 4), Hamburg: Argument-Verlag, pp. 343–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGettigan, Andrew (2013) The Great University Gamble: Money, Markets and the Future of Higher Education, London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKie, Linda and Louise Ryan (eds.) (2018) An End to the Crisis of Empirical Sociology? Trends and Challenges in Social Research, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael, Mike (2017) ‘Enacting Big Futures, Little Futures: Toward an Ecology of Futures’, The Sociological Review 65(3): 509–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mignolo, Walter D. (2011) The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options, Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, Claudia (2011) Doing Visual Research, London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myles, John F. (2004) ‘From Doxa to Experience: Issues in Bourdieu’s Adoption of Husserlian Phenomenology’, Theory, Culture & Society 21(2): 91–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nayar, Pramod K. (2014) Posthumanism, Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickel, Patricia Mooney (2012) ‘Sociology and the Future: Aspiration1’, New Zealand Sociology 27(1): 70–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Outhwaite, William (2006) The Future of Society, Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauwels, Luc (2015) Reframing Visual Social Science: Towards a More Visual Sociology and Anthropology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, Christopher (2018) Monkey Trouble. The Scandal of Posthumanism, New York: Fordham University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piketty, Thomas (2013) Le capital au XXIe siècle, Paris: Éditions du Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, Steven (2018) Enlightenment Now: A Manifesto for Science, Reason, Humanism, and Progress, London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, Karl (2001 [1944]) The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, 2nd Beacon Paperback Edition, Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Power, Michael (1994) The Audit Explosion, London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Power, Michael (1997) The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randeria, Shalini (1999) ‘Jenseits von Soziologie und soziokultureller Anthropologie. Zur Ortsbestimmung der nichtwestlichen Welt in einer zukünftigen Sozialtheorie’, Soziale Welt 50(4): 373–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauche, Gerhard Albin (1970) Contemporary Philosophical Alternatives and the Crisis of Truth. A Critical Study of Positivism, Existentialism and Marxism, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, Mark S. (2018 [2016]) The Research Impact Handbook, 2nd Edition, Huntly, Aberdeenshire: Fast Track Impact.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees, Martin (2018) On the Future: Prospects for Humanity, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehmann, Jan (2004) ‘Ideologietheorie’, in Wolfgang Fritz Haug (ed.) Historisch-Kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus (Band 6/I), Hamburg: Argument-Verlag, pp. 717–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reitz, Tilman (2004) ‘Ideologiekritik’, in Wolfgang Fritz Haug (ed.) Historisch-Kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus (Band 6/I), Hamburg: Argument-Verlag, pp. 689–717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renwick, Chris (2012) British Sociology’s Lost Biological Roots: A History of Futures Past, Foreword by Steve Fuller, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosa, Hartmut (2010) Alienation and Acceleration: Towards a Critical Theory of Late-Modern Temporality, Malmö: NSU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, Gillian (2016 [2001]) Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials, 4th Edition, London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, Richard (2010) ‘Sociology: A View from the Diaspora’, The British Journal of Sociology 61(4): 666–670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandywell, Barry (1996) Reflexivity and the Crisis of Western Reason. Logological Investigations—Volume 1, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos, Boaventura de Sousa and César A. Rodríguez-Garavito (2005) ‘Law, Politics, and the Subaltern in Counter-Hegemonic Globalization’, in Boaventura de Sousa Santos and César A. Rodríguez-Garavito (eds.) Law and Globalization from Below: Towards a Cosmopolitan Legality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, Mike (2010) ‘Unpicking Sociology’s Misfortunes’, The British Journal of Sociology 61(4): 659–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, J. Daniel (2002) ‘Defending Multiculturalism: From Hegemony to Symbolic Violence?’, American Behavioral Scientist 45(7): 1099–1102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, Markus S. (2015) ‘Future Moves: Forward-Oriented Studies of Culture, Society, and Technology’, Current Sociology 63(2): 129–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweppenhäuser, Gerhard, Dietrich zu Klampen, and Rolf Johannes (eds.) (1987) Krise und Kritik. Zur Aktualität der Marschen Theorie, Lüneburg: zu Klampen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweppenhäuser, Gerhard, Rolf Johannes, and Dietrich zu Klampen (eds.) (1989) Krise und Kritik. Zur Aktualität der Marschen Theorie II., Lüneburg: zu Klampen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, Martin (1998) ‘The Historical Sociology of the Future’, Review of International Political Economy 5(2): 321–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sim, Stuart (2002) Irony and Crisis: A Critical History of Postmodern Culture, Cambridge: Icon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slott, Michael (2002) ‘Does Critical Postmodernism Help us “Name the System”?’, British Journal of Sociology of Education 23(3): 413–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, Barry (1993) Postmodernity, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, Barry (2016) ‘Military-Industrial Complexities, University Research and Neoliberal Economy’, Journal of Sociology 52(3): 455–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soeffner, Hans-Georg (2012) ‘Die Zukunft der Soziologie’, in Hans-Georg Soeffner (ed.) Transnationale Vergesellschaftungen, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 47–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparkes, Andrew C. (2007) ‘Embodiment, Academics, and the Audit Culture: A Story Seeking Consideration’, Qualitative Research 7(4): 521–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, Stephen (2011) Visual Research Methods in the Social Sciences: Awakening Visions, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strathern, Marilyn (ed.) (2000) Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics, and the Academy, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streeck, Wolfgang (2011) ‘The Crises of Democratic Capitalism’, New Left Review 71: 5–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susen, Simon (2007) The Foundations of the Social: Between Critical Theory and Reflexive Sociology, Oxford: Bardwell Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susen, Simon (2008a) ‘Poder y anti-poder (I–III)’, Erasmus: Revista para el diálogo intercultural 10(1): 49–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susen, Simon (2008b) ‘Poder y anti-poder (IV–V)’, Erasmus: Revista para el diálogo intercultural 10(2): 133–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susen, Simon (2009a) ‘Between Emancipation and Domination: Habermasian Reflections on the Empowerment and Disempowerment of the Human Subject’, Pli: The Warwick Journal of Philosophy 20: 80–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susen, Simon (2009b) ‘The Philosophical Significance of Binary Categories in Habermas’s Discourse Ethics’, Sociological Analysis 3(2): 97–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susen, Simon (2010c) ‘Remarks on the Concept of Critique in Habermasian Thought’, Journal of Global Ethics 6(2): 103–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susen, Simon (2011a) ‘Kritische Gesellschaftstheorie or kritische Gesellschaftspraxis? Robin Celikates, Kritik als soziale Praxis. Gesellschaftliche Selbstverständigung und kritische Theorie (Frankfurt am Main, Campus Verlag, 2009)’, Archives Européennes de Sociologie / European Journal of Sociology 52(3): 447–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susen, Simon (2011d) ‘Critical Notes on Habermas’s Theory of the Public Sphere’, Sociological Analysis 5(1): 37–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susen, Simon (2011e) ‘Epistemological Tensions in Bourdieu’s Conception of Social Science’, Theory of Science 33(1): 43–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susen, Simon (2012a) ‘“Open Marxism” against and beyond the “Great Enclosure”? Reflections on How (Not) to Crack Capitalism’, Journal of Classical Sociology 12(2): 281–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susen, Simon (2013c) ‘The Place of Space in Social and Cultural Theory’, in Anthony Elliott (ed.) Routledge Handbook of Social and Cultural Theory, London: Routledge, pp. 333–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susen, Simon (2013e) ‘Bourdieusian Reflections on Language: Unavoidable Conditions of the Real Speech Situation’, Social Epistemology 27(3–4): 199–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susen, Simon (2014c) ‘Luc Boltanski: His Life and Work—An Overview’, in Simon Susen and Bryan S. Turner (eds.) The Spirit of Luc Boltanski: Essays on the ‘Pragmatic Sociology of Critique’, London: Anthem Press, pp. 3–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susen, Simon (2014 [2015]) ‘Towards a Dialogue between Pierre Bourdieu’s “Critical Sociology” and Luc Boltanski’s “Pragmatic Sociology of Critique”‘, in Simon Susen and Bryan S. Turner (eds.) The Spirit of Luc Boltanski: Essays on the ‘Pragmatic Sociology of Critique’, trans. Simon Susen, London: Anthem Press, pp. 313–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susen, Simon (2015a) The ‘Postmodern Turn’ in the Social Sciences, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susen, Simon (2015c) ‘Une réconciliation entre Pierre Bourdieu et Luc Boltanski est-elle possible ? Pour un dialogue entre la sociologie critique et la sociologie pragmatique de la critique’, in Bruno Frère (ed.) Le tournant de la théorie critique, Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, pp. 151–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susen, Simon (2016c) ‘Towards a Critical Sociology of Dominant Ideologies: An Unexpected Reunion between Pierre Bourdieu and Luc Boltanski’, Cultural Sociology 10(2): 195–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susen, Simon (2016d) ‘Further Reflections on the “Postmodern Turn” in the Social Sciences: A Reply to William Outhwaite’, International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 29(4): 429–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susen, Simon (2017c) ‘Between Crisis and Critique: The Fragile Foundations of Social Life à la Rodrigo Cordero’, Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory 18(1): 95–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susen, Simon (2017d) ‘Following the Footprints of the “Postmodern Turn”: A Reply to Gregor McLennan’, European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology 4(1): 104–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susen, Simon (2018c) ‘Jürgen Habermas: Between Democratic Deliberation and Deliberative Democracy’, in Ruth Wodak and Bernhard Forchtner (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics, London: Routledge, pp. 43–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susen, Simon (2020c) ‘Intimations of Humanity and the Case for a Philosophical Sociology’, Journal of Political Power 13(1): 123–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Charles (1989a) Sources of the Self. The Making of the Modern Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tezanos Tortajada, José Félix (2001) ‘Reflexiones sobre el presente y el futuro de la sociología’, Revista Española de Sociología 1: 33–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toews, David (2003) ‘The New Tarde: Sociology after the End of the Social’, Theory, Culture & Society 20(5): 81–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsilimpounidi, Myrto (2017) Sociology of Crisis: Visualising Urban Austerity, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turetzky, Philip (1998) Time, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tutton, Richard (2017) ‘Wicked Futures: Meaning, Matter and the Sociology of the Future’, The Sociological Review 65(3): 478–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urry, John (2010) ‘Consuming the Planet to Excess’, Theory, Culture & Society 27(2–3): 191–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urry, John (2016) What Is the Future?, Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vakaloulis, Michel (2001) Le Capitalisme post-moderne : Eléments pour une critique sociologique, Paris: Collection Actuel Marx Confrontation, Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wacquant, Loïc (2004a) ‘Critical Thought as Solvent of Doxa’, Constellations 11(1): 97–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, Peter (2010) ‘Critique and Crisis Reconsidered, Reflections on Luc Boltanski’s De la critique (Paris: Gallimard, 2009)’, Archives Européennes de Sociologie / European Journal of Sociology 51(3): 473–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wajcman, Judy and Nigel Dodd (eds.) (2016) The Sociology of Speed: Digital, Organizational, and Social Temporalities, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walby, Sylvia (2015) Crisis, Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallerstein, Immanuel Maurice (2011a) ‘Dynamics of (Unresolved) Global Crisis’, in Craig Calhoun and Georgi Derluguian (eds.) Business as Usual: The Roots of the Global Financial Meltdown, New York: New York University Press, pp. 69–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, Thomas (1995) ‘Basis’, in Wolfgang Fritz Haug (ed.) Historisch-Kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus (Band 2), Hamburg: Argument-Verlag, pp. 27–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernick, Andrew (2000) ‘From Comte to Baudrillard: Socio-Theology after the End of the Social’, Theory, Culture & Society 17(6): 55–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westwood, Sally (2000) ‘Re-Branding Britain: Sociology, Futures and Futurology’, Sociology 34(1): 185–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willetts, David (2010) The Pinch: How the Baby Boomers Took Their Children’s Future—And Why They Should Give It Back, London: Atlantic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willetts, David (2017) A University Education, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Steve, Harriet Bradley, Ranji Devadson, and Mark Erickson (2013) Globalization and Work, Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, Larry (1994) Inventing Eastern Europe. The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodside, Arch G. (ed.) (2016) Bad to Good: Achieving High Quality and Impact in Your Research, Bingley: Emerald Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Susan and Cris Shore (eds.) (2017) Death of the Public University? Uncertain Futures for Higher Education in the Knowledge Economy, New York: Berghahn Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zine, Magubane (2016) ‘American Sociology’s Racial Ontology: Remembering Slavery, Deconstructing Modernity, and Charting the Future of Global Historical Sociology’, Cultural Sociology 10(3): 369–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Žižek, Slavoj (1989) The Sublime Object of Ideology, London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Žižek, Slavoj (ed.) (1994) Mapping Ideology, London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Žižek, Slavoj (2010) Living in the End Times, London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. City, University of London, London, UK

    Simon Susen

Authors
  1. Simon Susen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon Susen .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Susen, S. (2020). Hegemony and Sociology. In: Sociology in the Twenty-First Century. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38424-1_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38424-1_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-38423-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-38424-1

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation